(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina tobacco report [serial]"

TOBACCO REPORT 

i964-f965 




THE BULLETIN 

of the 
North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

James A. Graham, Commissioner 
Number 179 April, 1965 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Flue-Cured Tobacco Outlook, 1965 _ 5 

Burley Tobacco Outlook, 1965- g 

Estimated Cost for Growing Flue-Cured Tobacco 9 

Tobacco Cuality ^q 

S;;,f,: Summary, 1964-65.. _.. 14 

North Carolina Tobacco Warehouse Sales Report, 1964-65- 16 

Summary of Dealer and Warehouse Resales, 1964-65 IS 

Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured Tobacco By States, 1964 18 

Stabilization Receipts by Belt — 1964 19 

Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19 

Burley Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops, 1919-1964 20 

North Carolina Burley Crops, 1928-1964 - 21 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments, 1965 22 

North Carolina Burley Tobacco Allotments, 1965 24 

North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses and Operators 

By Belts and Markets - 25 

Estimated Flue-Cured Exports 31 

Domestic Cigarette Consumption By Kinds, 1963 Back Cover 




For mauy years flue-cured tobacco 
has been the number one crop in North 
Carolina. It has accounted for about 
two-thirds of the state's income from 
crops in recent years, which amounted 
to almost one-half of the state's total 
agricultural income. With a sound to- 
bacco program, tobacco will continue 
to be the major source of farm income 
in North Carolina. 

As your Commissioner of Agricul- 
ture, I pledge my support to the wel- 
fare of the tobacco farmers and the 
future of tobacco in North Carolina. 
We must stay ahead with tobacco — ^not 
only in the United States, but the 
World. 



'-^pHX^'j^*^ 



C^t^. 



STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 



James A. Graham, Commissioner 
Ex-Officio Chairman 

J. Atwell Alexander Stony Point 

Thomas 0. Gilmore Julian 

HoYLE C. Griffin Monroe 

Claude T. Hall Roxboro 

Thomas G. Joyner Garysburg 

George P. Kittrell . Corapeake 

Charles F. Phillips Thomasville 

J. H. Poole.. West End 

A. B. Slagle ..Franklin 

David Townsend. Jr.. Rowland 



FOREWORD 

This sixteenth annual issue of the Tobacco Report 
has been compiled and prepared by W. P. Hedrick and 
J. H. Cyrus, tobacco specialists with the Division of 
Markets of the North Carolina Department of Agri- 
culture, in cooperation with the U. S. Department of 
Agriculture under the Research and Marketing Act. 

Credit is due the Cooperative Crop Reporting Serv- 
ice of the North Carolina and United States Depart- 
ments of Agriculture, and the Tobacco Division of the 
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service for much of the 
statistical data contained herein. 

This issue of the Tobacco Report is dedicated to the 
future of the tobacco industry which has withstood 
many crises in the past and will in the years ahead. 




Cy&u^. 



Commissioner of Agriculture 



For free distribution by the Tobacco Section, 
Markets Division, North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C. 



4 6.")-6M 

4 



Flue-Cured Tobacco Outlook, 1965 

It was not unusual or surprising to many North Carolina grow- 
ers who placed tobacco on the warehouse floors during the past 
season to see several piles, which companies would normally buy, 
go to the Stabilization Corporation under the price support pro- 
gram. 

When the season opened it was evident that tobacco was being 
sold on a buyer's market. The Stabilization Corporation held 690 
million pounds in storage accumulated from seven previous crops, 
1957 through 1963. 

As the season progressed the situation went from bad to worse 
and by the end of the 1964 season Stabilization Corporation held 
on loan 960 million pounds of surplus leaf. Including the stocks 
held by Stabilization the total amount of tobacco available from 
all sources for 1965 will amount to 3,761 million pounds or about 
three times yearly disappearance. 

The tobacco acreage control price support program is in trou- 
ble, in fact so much trouble that growers, warehousemen, dealers 
and manufacturers are groping for ways to make major adjust- 
ments in the program that has proved successful for the past 25 
years. 

Many formulas have been suggested but the one receiving the 
most consideration is an acreage-poundage system contained in 
a bill introduced in the Congress by Honorable Harold Cooley. 
The bill introduced received the support of most of the leadership 
in the industry and hearings held on the bill indicate that most 
growers would support it in principle. 

Regardless of the outcome of the acreage-poundage bill, grow- 
ers have already voted, on December 15, 1964, for acreage con- 
trol for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. 

On November 27, 1964 the U. S. Department of Agriculture an- 
nounced that flue-cured tobacco acreage allotments would be re- 
duced by 191/^ percent for 1965. This reduction makes 515,425 
acres available for the national allotment. North Carolina grow- 
ers will have 340,000 acres. In the referendum flue-cured growers 
voted 96yo percent in favor of continuing marketing quotas for 
the three-year period. 

Under the present law the overall price support level for the 



1965 crop will be 57.7 cents per pouud. This represents an ad- 
vance in support price of .5 cents per pound over the 1964 sup- 
port price. 

The financial success of the individual farmer will depend 
somewhat on rhe yields per acre produced on each farm under 
the present program. However, if the acreage-poundage bill is 
passed and put into effect for 1965 the amount of tobacco each 
grower can sell will be fixed at a figure determined by the me- 
chanics of the law. 

The yields per acre for all flue-cured areas combined averaged 
a record of 2,203 pounds, 228 pounds above 1963. North Caro- 
lina's yield per acre was 2,283 pounds, an increase over 1963 of 
284 pounds. 

The production in 1965 should be reduced considerably with 
the 191^ percent acreage reduction. The amount will c'lcpend on 
the growing season, varieties planted and the cultural practices 
followed by growers. 

North Carolina growers produced 950 million pounds last year 
and received $548 million dollars in income for the crop. Steadily 
increasing yields have kept a buffer between the individual farm- 
er and a program that has steadily cut back his acreage. If the 
cut in acres means a cut in income, it will be a new experience 
for many growers. But the days of keeping up income with better 
yields could be over, even if growing seasons are good. This is 
borne out by the fact that most growers are becoming quality 
conscious due to criticism leveled at our tobacco by foreign buy- 
ers. Most growers are planting recommended and approved seed 
varieties, following cultural practices recommended by the State 
Extension Service and striving to produce tobacco that has a high 
percentage of ripe, light to medium bodied tobacco with good 
flavor and aroma and a moderate level of nicotine. 

Domestic use of flue-cured tobacco during 1964 has about held 
at the 1963 level in spite of a two percent loss in cigarette con- 
sumption. This will be the third year that domestic use has re- 
mained at about 777 million pounds. It looked at the beginning 
of the year that domestic use would be off considerably more, 
since cigarette sales were down from 15 to 20 percent during 
February and March 1964, following the Surgeon General's Re- 
port on Smoking and Health released on January 11. But as the 
report was analyzed, and the smoking public realized that noth- 
ing new had been discovered from a medical standpoint, sales 
began to recover. 



I 



U. S. smokers consumed 498 billion cigarettes during 1964, 
down from 510 billion in 1963. Cigarette consumption should 
edge upward some in 1965 and therefore domestic use of flue- 
cured should increase slightly in 1965. 

The output of smoking tobacco for pipes and roll-your-own cig- 
arettes totaled 82 million pounds, or up 16 percent from 1963. 
Consumption of smoking tobacco was up sharply following the 
Surgeon General's report in the first quarter, but the rate of in- 
crease slowed down during the remainder of the year. 

Exports of flue-cured tobacco for 1965 are likely to be some- 
what smaller than in 1964 when about 465 million pounds were 
sent to foreign countries. The expected decline in exports will 
likely be caused by a combination of factors; large supplies of 
tobacco available in countries which compete with the U. S. in 
production, and generally at lower prices than those for U. S. 
tobacco. Another factor will be that some countries built up their 
stocks of American tobacco during 1964, and the increase in the 
manufacture of filter tips which use less tobacco than regular cig- 
arettes. There has been considerable publicity in some countries 
abroad concerning the smoking health controversy. This has 
tended to slow up cigarette manufacture where this has happened 
and consequently reduced the purchases of leaf. 

The U. S. grower and exporter can expect increasingly severe 
competition from other tobacco producing countries whose gov- 
ernments need foreign exchange, and it is reasonable to expect 
they will make their purchases in countries where tobacco of 
acceptable quality can be bought at reasonable prices. 

In 1964 the world harvest of flue-cured leaf totaled 3.6 billion 
pounds. Rhodesia, India, Japan and Australia had record crops, 
raised mainly for export. Canada was the only flue-cured pro- 
ducer that showed a decline in production. Rhodesia in recent 
years has enjoyed booming sales of flue-cured leaf, especially to 
the United Kingdom, West Germany, the Netherlands, Hong 
Kong and Japan. All these countries have been important mark- 
ets for U. S. flue-cured, and sales of Rhodesian tobacco will doubt- 
less affect the level of U. S. trade with these countries. 

The overall outlook for flue-cured tobacco for 1965 is that grow- 
ers can expect a drop in income due to acreage cut, the intro- 
duction of an acreage-poundage program for 1966, some down- 
ward trend in the surplus tobacco held by the Stabilization, 
increased excise taxes on cigarettes in many states and improve- 
ment in the general tobacco situation during 1966. 



Burley Tobacco Outlook, 1965 

1964 was one of the worst crop years since 1960 for the 18,000 
burley growers in western North Carolina. The growers experi- 
enced hot, dry weather during most of the growing season, re- 
sulting in production of only 21.5 million pounds of tobacco. 

Quality of the crop was a little below normal which was reflect- 
ed in the amount of cash received — $12.5 million. 

The burley crop over the entire belt was below normal in qual- 
ity and the stabilization price support pools received 111 million 
pounds from the crop. 

Supplies of burley have reached an all time high of 2,043 mil- 
lion pounds, or 3.5 years supply. 

During the year 1964 the domestic use of burley was 514 mil- 
lion pounds, 17 million below 1963 and the first downturn in six 
years. The decline in 1964 of domestic use was greater than ex- 
pected, although cigarette consumption also declined a smaller 
percentage than leaf use. 

The 1965 acreage allotment will be reduced another 10 percent, 
according to the Secretary of Agriculture, and a referendum was 
held on February 25. North Carolina growers approved the 10 
percent acreage reduction and marketing quotas for the next 
three years by a vote of 99.2 percent in favor. 

The overall price support level for the 1964 burley crop was 
58.9 cents per pound and the 1965 price support will increase .6 
to 59.5 cents per pound. 

While exports of burley have never been very large they have 
been setting records in recent years. During 1964 exports reach- 
ed 57 million pounds, which was four million above 1963. Eleven 
countries received over 80 percent of the burley tobacco exported. 
West Germany, Egypt and Sweden were the main buyers. 

Burley growers are receiving competition by some foreign 
countries in the production of tobacco for export. Rhodesia, 
Greece, Mexico and Japan have increased their production, hop- 
ing to enter the market on a price advantage. 

The United States burley growers have a big quality advantage 
and it is likely that our growers will maintain their share of the 
world market for some time to come. 



I 



Estimated Cost For Growing Flue-Cured 
Tobacco* 



Items 


1,800 Pounds 


Per Acre Yield 
2,500 Pounds 


Your Farm 


Sales @ 60 cents per 
pound (tied tobacco) 


$1 080 00 


$1,500.00 

$ 5.40 
4.30 
2.50 
4.40 
.30 
10.00 
5.10 

2.00 
12.50 
12.00 
33.84 

8.84 
12.00 

4.90 
60.00 
30.65 
15.50 
45.00 
264.25 
15.98 

9.00 

15.02 

573.48 

78.47 
34.07 
24.83 




Plantbed expenses 
Pumigant 


$ 5.40 

4.30 




Fertilizer .._ 




Tobacco seed 


-.-.- 2.50 

4.40 

.30 




Blue-mold treatment 




Insecticide -.- __ 




Plantbed cloth _ 


10.00 
5.10 

-- 2.00 

- 12.50 

10.00 

, 31.02 

5.84 

10.00 

-- 3.50 

- - 45.00 

30.65 




Gastight cover 




Field expenses 

Cover crop seed _ _ 




Soil fumigation _ 




Field insect control 




Fertilizer 




Topdressing . 




Sucker control 




Twine 




Fuel Oil 




Insurance, tobacco 




Insurance, barn 


...- 15.50 

32.40 

-- 192.75 

15.98 

. - .. 9 00 




Marketing 




Hired labor . 




Tractor, operator 




Truck 




Irrigation . 


— - - 448.14 

48.20 




Total variable expenses 




Fixed expenses 

Depreciation 




Interest 


23.15 




Repairs 


-. 17.55 

15.43 

1.25 




Insurance 


22.71 




Taxes 


1.85 




Other machines 


39.21 

144.79 

$ 487.07 


39.21 




Total fixed expenses 


201.14 




Net revenue 


$ 725.38 










♦Ciiurtcsy of rrngressive Furmer Flue-Cured Tobacco Supplement, .\pril. UiBo. 





Tobacco Quality 



The principal things that make flue-cured tobacco quality are 
variety, soil, climate and cultural practices or know-how. North 
Carolina tobacco growers have an abundance of all. 

Why then is it said that the quality of the tobacco being pro- 
duced today has declined significantly when compared with to- 
bacco they were producing prior to World War II ? 

Most of the quality problems started in 1952, when the first 
health attack was leveled at cigarettes and filter tips began to 
sell at a rapid rate. Prior to filters, every grower in the produc- 
ing area could judge his crop from a quality standpoint and al- 
most tell you what company would buy each grade from a given 
crop. There was a sharp distinction between the grades bought 
by domestic buyers and those grades bought by foreign buyers. 

The buying patterns of the companies first began to change 
during the mid 1950's. Traditionally, domestic buyers had bought 




The grower sorts and grades his tobacco based on his knowledge and skill. 



10 



I 




The U. S. tobacco grader has a system based somewhat on stalk position. 



tobacco with lighter bodied texture than the foreign buyer, but 
with the increased use of filters by American smokers, the do- 
mestic companies dipped over into the foreign types in order to 
get l^avor and aroma to the smoker through the filter. 

At this point, the question of what is quality began to plague 
the tobacco growers. Should he strive to produce tobacco of hea- 
vy bodied texture or continue to plant old line varieties that had 
proved desirable to the buyers through the years? Fate made 
the decision for him with the discovery of tobacco plant diseases 
on the farms. Granville wilt, black shank and many others made 
it clear that to continue to produce tobacco, disease resistant va- 
rieties would have to be used. 

Tobacco seed breeders developed several disease resistant va- 
rieties that have kept growers in the flue-cured area of the South- 
east in business. These disease resistant varieties, which tol- 
erate a high level of fertilization, have enabled tobacco growers 
to almost double the yield per acre in the past 10 years. 

In the meantime, consumer preference in the type and kind of 
cigarettes, and technological changes in the manufacturing of 
tobacco products, have changed the long understood term of qual- 



11 



ity in the raw product to a new definition known to the buyer 
as usability. 

The tobacco grower at present is going through the stage of 
trying to learn and understand what the domestic and foreign 
buyer means by usability. At a recent meeting of tobacco grow- 
ers, one domestic buyer tried to explain the changes in the usage 
along the following lines. 

Over a period of years the preference of American cigarette 
smokers has changed perceptibly in the direction of a milder 
product. In the case of cigarettes, this trend has been abetted 
by the widely publicized health charges over the past 10 years 
and promulgation of the idea that the health hazard is related 
to the amount of nicotine and tar in the smoke. The average 
amount of nicotine in the smoke of five leading brands of cigar- 
ettes has been reduced by half over the past 10 years. 

Manufacutrers have accomplished this reduction in nicotine 
content of the smoke by selection of usable grades of tobacco, 
blending and use of filters. The American public has been edu- 
cated to accept a lower amount of nicotine in the cigarette but 
they still want good taste, full aroma, and full smoke flavor. In 
buying tobacco on the warehouse floor, all buyers are purchasing 
grades with low nicotine content, yet with full aroma and smoke 
flavor. 

A third and important definition of quality is placed on flue- 
cured tobacco by the United States Department of Agriculture, 
Tobacco Division, whereby tobacco placed on the warehouse floor 
is inspected before sale and a U. S. Government grade placed 
upon each pile. The U. S. Tobacco Inspector is a highly trained, 
skilled judge of tobacco who uses a system of grades based main- 
ly on the position that tobacco grows on the stalk. These grades 
are used to identify stalk position, quality, color, and to substan- 
tiate the support price used by the Commodity Credit Corpora- 
tion price support program. 

The grading system used by the Government to identify qual- 
ity has been in effect many years and most growers are fairly 
familiar with its use. Therefore, the grower has to know these 
three methods of grading ; his own, based on empirical judgment ; 
the companies' based on usability ; and the Government's based 
on stalk position. 

So what is tobacco quality? There are many things that enter 
into quality. Some of these are obvious. Others are difficult to 
understand and even more difficult to describe. Tobacco qual- 



12 




The company buyer bases his judgment on usability. 

ity is a very real thing, the most important factor in the accept- 
ability of a cigarette. Therefore, to meet the quality problem, 
growers are planting recommended and approvel seed varieties, 
following cultural practices recommended by the Extension Serv- 
ice, and striving to produce a crop that has a high percentage of 
ripe light-to-medium bodied tobacco with good flavor and aroma 
and a moderate level of nicotine. They are presenting each lot 
in fairly well sorted baskets and letting the buying companies 
determine the quality. 



13 



State Summary 1964-65 

North Carolina flue-cured farmers experienced one of their beat years 
on record during the 1964 marketing season, with their gross income fall- 
ing only one million dollars short of the all time record high income re- 
ceived in 1962. However, there was a slight drop in average price, which 
indicates that the boost in gross income was due primarily to a record 
increase in average yield per acre of 284 pounds over the previous year. 
This increase in yield more than offset the 10 percent reduction in acreage 
for 1964. In fact, North Carolina production was 3.2 percent, or 29 mil- 
lion pounds, more in 1964 than the previous year even with the 10 percent 
cut in acreage. 

The general quality of the 19 64 crop, using the U. S. Standard Grades 
as a guage, was slightly inferior to the previous year. There was a sub- 
stantial increase in the amount of tobacco grading into the unripe var- 
iegated grades (KL) (KF) (KV) (KM), and a proportionate drop in the 
percentage of the crop grading into the mature and fully ripe straight 
grades. However, there was an improvement in smoking qualities in some 
areas, which was reflected by higher prices and a stronger market demand. 

A summary of the 1964 marketing season in North Carolina shows that 
the 44 flue-cured markets sold 899,347,616 pounds of tobacco for farmers, 
which returned to growers selling on North Carolina markets $519,672,- 
463. This gave them a 1964 season average price of $57.78 per hundred. 
In 1963 growers sold 872,597,600 pounds for a return of $509,905,929, 
giving them a season average of $58.40. This was the third consecutive 
year that the avergae price of flue-cured tobacco has shown a decline, even 
though the support price moved up one percent in each of those three 
years. Nevertheless, growers received $9,766,544 more in 1964 for tobac- 
co sold on North Carolina markets, due primarily to an increase of 26.76S,- 
016 in the pounds of tobacco sold during the 1964 season. 

Price support was available on untied grades of primings and lugs and 
best nondescript from those grades during the first seven days of sale in 
all belts. All markets observed a four-day sales week during the last eight 
weeks of the flue-cured season, because of congestion in redrying facilities. 

Type 13 — The 1964 marketing season began in North Carolina on Au- 
gust 6 with the opening of the Border Belt. The quality of offerings in 
this belt was slightly lower than the previous year because of an increase 
in poor and low quality leaf of a variegated color. Most grades of prim- 
ings and lugs showed gains over the previous year ranging from $1 to $.3 
per hundred. Losses on leaf grades were about equal to gains on primings 
and lugs. 

North Carolina markets in this belt sold 165,688,468 pounds for farmers 
in 1964, returning to them $97,646,067, which gave them a season average 
of $58.93 per hundred. In 1963 growers selling in this belt sold 166,160,- 
612 pounds for $99,768,328, averaging $60.04 for the season. 

Final sales were held in the Border Belt on October 15 after operating 
for 43 sale days. This made the 1964 season 10 days shorter than the 
previous year. 

14 



Type 12 — The 17 Eastern Belt markets started 1964 sales on August 
27, about one week later than the previous year. The quality of offerings 
was lower compared with the previous year due primarily to an increase 
in the volume of leaf tobacco placed in variegated grades. About two- 
thirds of the grades offered showed declines in prices ranging from $1 to 
$6 per hundred. Stabilization receipts were the highest on record for this 
belt. 

The 1964 producer sales, dollar value and average price in this belt 
showed the following declines compared with the previous year. Volume 
of sales was 420,093,250 pounds, compared to 421,882,034 in 1963. The 
dollar value of $238,216,548 compared to $247,680,810 the previous year. 
The market average was $56.71 compared to $58.71 in 1963. 

Sales in the Eastern Belt were completed on November 19, giving this 
belt an auction season of 49 sale days compared with 57 days in 1963. 

Type IIB — The 10 Middle Belt markets opened for the 1964 season on 
September 10, which was only one day later than the 19 63 opening date. 
The quality of offerings in this belt showed improvement over the previous 
year with a smaller percentage of nondescript and poor leaf. There was 
also a sharp increase in the amount of ripe desirable smoking tobacco. 

The 1964 volume and dollar value of producer sales in the Middle Belt 
were at an all time record high. Growers received $104,985,097 from the 
sales of 177,578,510 pounds of tobacco with a season average of $59.12 
per hundred. In 1963 these growers sold 165,337,354 pounds for a return 
of $95,051,596, averaging only $57.49. 

The Middle Belt completed the 1964 season on December 3, selling only 
4S days compared with 59 days in 1963. 

Type 11 A — The nine North Carolina Old Belt markets started 1964 
sales on September 24, one day later than the 1963 opening. The quality 
of the Old Belt offerings improved considerably over the previous year with 
less tobacco grading into poor quality grades, and a marked increase in 
smoking leaf and cutters. 

The Old Belt also set a new record in volume of sales and dollar value 
during the 1964 season. This record year resulted in producer sales of 
135,987,388 pounds, which returned growers $78,824,751 for a season 
average of $57.96 per hundred. In 1963 growers sold 119,199,600 pounds 
for $67,405,195, averaging $56.55 per hundred. 

Pinal sales were held in the North Carolina Old Belt on December 17. 
This was an auction season of 50 sale days compared with 56 in 1963. 

Type 31 — North Carolina Burley Markets at Asheville, Boone and West 
Jefferson opened for the 1964-65 season November 30, 1964. The quality 
of offerings showed very little overall change from the previous year. How- 
ever, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of leaf and lug grades 
and an increase in the proportion of flyings and tips. About 15 percent of 
the gross sales in North Carolina was placed under government loan. 

There was a decline in the volume of producer sales and in dollar value 
due to the 10 percent reduction in acreage in 1964. Producer sales drop- 
ped to 18,591,150 pounds, averaging $56.87 per hundred, which returned 
growers $10,572,368. In 1963 growers received $12,139,689 from the 
sale of 22,824,882 pounds of tobacco, averaging $53.19 per hundred. 

Final sales were held in the North Carolina burley area January 15. 
1965. There were 2-2 sale days during the season compared to 26 sale 
days the previous year. 

15 



I 



OO T-1 lO iH I 



c 
o 

Ui 

U 
O 



1-1 '^ T-( t- OS ir- 1 



I "^ CC -H ! 



< o cr> 00 "* o O' o < 



T-H ,H ,-H 6S1 ,-H ! 



' tH LO (M rH T-H i-H iH ( 






O 

a 
o 

_® 

O 

o 

3 
O 

o 
o 

u 

u 

O 
JQ 

O 
I- 

D 

C 



o 
u 



o 

z 



H ==. 


C- iH fr^ t> oo O 


o 


o 




Si 


CO cq US i>- oi w 

C<1 OS CD rH CC ■* 
CO OO OO O CO t- 


i 


fis 




s 


Q 


H 










K 








a 


O 








^ 




CD CO M C-l Tt- 00 


J^ 


en 


g 


U5 CO '^ CO C^3 OO 


» 


o 


Hi 




Oi CO lO CO t- OO 


CO 


1 




J3 CO iH ■rH O '^ 






1 


FH ^ 


CO O lO t> t>0 OO 


CO 


eg 


H 


^ w 


T— ( Tf (M 


CJ 


•^ 


h^ 


E^ 






tH 


M 


P3 








03 


rr; 








^ 


^ 








K 


PS oo 


-^ T-H OO T-H '■f O 


■^ 


s? 




U o 


in> Oi o CO 00 o 


r- 


< 




i^ ift CD u:; IC <D 


iO 


vo 


S 



"* CO tH < 



■Sli C t! o >- <D 



(C^CftMOC^OSOC-3T— It— iCDOOi' 
t W C- CSI iH t^ frq U5 (m' CO ■^* i-H O csT I 

(i-HW^CDlOTHinCqw.-(i-HTHWI 



a) o « 

B o ■ 



•^ ° r. g - - 



a; o 0) "'- 






^ c c 
•a .5 o . 



'CoQfc.OOtiJrtWMHI 



OOO-^tfiOlOr-CC 

mioicirsiOLnirsiCL 



•a w 


■^ 


to Tt* O CO Cq O «D 
■^ -* C^ to rH OO W 
eg Oi eg o:, C^q CO O 


S 


CO 00 00 -* 00 
in to U3 OS in CO 
Tf ^ C^ CO rH 


^ 


'^ 





00 



S 


00 o 


s? 


■3:1 ir- CO oi in CO oo 
iH 00 eg c- c- 


OS 


m CO t^ c- th 00 

M C- CO ■* tH CD 


S 









CO 


t- 


o in 


" 


(N Ol t* rH 00 C^ 
<M C^^ eg rH rH 




00 to t~ ^ ^ 


tH 


CD 


in 


(>•' 


s 



CO O ^ I 

iH -^^ eg fi 
00 10* c-^ c 



> rj^ eg TjH Tt^ 

> t> CO t>^ 00' 
! in in in in 



O t- rH Kh 

00 ■*" in CO 
in in in i o 



S w S S "^ '^ °° ^ "" "" 


CO 


> TYPE 11 A 

10,624,608 

8,067,312 

11,225,030 

6,232,678 

12,261,850 

13,076,380 

13,507,151 

8,975,464 

63,540,402 


10 


CO 


w 


595,6 
753,4 
278,3 
230,5 
157,9 
530,9 
758,3 
085,2 
852,7 
141,2 










M 


2'°5;'^ = g^^oM 



I 00 eg Tt* I 

I CO 00 o> I 

O <M 00 1-1 C 



o 

|£! 
K 
is 

"> U o 00 to ( 

OT H S rt t^ i 

10 P m" ,_,',_,■. 

O H t- CO CO c 

00 [i, c~ c-j to c 
& 

n 



inooiTPotoosincDoi |<?q H 
tgeoi-icooscot-cocgcg i-i h^ 



§ in in to in CD in i 



M C^^ ffq < 

t3 coco. 
M oo'io'i 



) th 01 o^ CKi in CO crs 

C^ t- t> CO CO o" <M 
C^] W tH C^ rH tH 



* bo S i " ^ M 



I Cq to It- o t- 



>t>inocotDoo*^co 
) f- o CD rH cq Sg'oo to' 

tH rH tH T-l in 









, .. o) o 'S o 2 ^ 



3,S£t5 - - 






> « 
J3 O 






Summary of N. C. Dealer and Ware- 
house Resales- -1964 



Percentage 
]}glt Pounds Dollars Resales 

Border Belt 

Dealer 3,965,801 

Warehouse 10,286,287 

Eastern Belt 

Dealer 6,744,878 

AVarehouse 12,232,028 

Middle Belt 

Dealer 4,564,450 

Warehouse 7,241,536 

Old Belt 

Dealer 2,868,808 

Warehouse 8,654,679 

Total Flue-Cured Resales 56,558.467 

Burley Belt 

Dealer 862,934 

Warehouse 1,923,532 



1,839,713 


2.2 


5,621,661 


5.7 


3,089,557 


1.5 


5,821,800 


2.8 


2,270,687 


2.4 


3,884,778 


3.8 


1,351,292 


1.9 


5,047,829 


5.9 


28,927,317 


5.9 


477,718 


4.0 


1,052',083 


9.0 


1,529,801 


13.0 



Total Burley Resales 2,786,466 



Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured 

Tobacco by States-- 1964 

Producer Sales Gross Sales 

Stale Pounds Average Pounds Average 

N. C. 899,347,616 $57.78 955,906,083 $57.39 

Va. 178,290,031 60.26 186,411,732 59.90 

S. C. 143,483,632 60.48 158,251,141 59.98 

Ga. 138,2'15,490 59.13 152,053,610 58.62 

Pla. 19,812,833 58.82 22,32'9,519 58.67 

Total 1,379,149,602 $58.53 1,474,952,085 $58.13 

18 



Stabilization Receipts By Belts- -1964 



Producer Stabirization Percentage 



"*"' Type Sales (lbs.) Receip ts (lbs.) Stab. Received 

Old Belt llA 314,277,419 71,069.570 22.6 

Middle Belt IIB 177,578,510 38,843,232 21.9 

Eastern Belt 12' 420,093,250 125,306,100 29.8 

Border Belt 13 309,172,100 46,540,394 15.0 

Ga.-Fla. Belt 14 158,028,323 3,031,168 1.9 

Total 11-14 1,379,149,602 284,790,464 20.6 



Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of 
North Carolina 



N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State Out of State Tobacco Sold in N C. 
(Poun'fs) (Pounds) 

^*"° 1964 1963 1964 1963 



Va. 53,991,402 52,673,176 11,119,919 9,555,702 

S. C. 14,828,958 13,630,293 13,426,523 15.622,569 

Ga. 2,480,800 3,500,202 

Fla. 80,938 157,453 



Ala. 



1.332 1.544 



Total 71,382,098 69,961,127 24,547.774 25,179,815 



Burley Tobacco Movement In and Out 
of North Carolina 



State 


N. C. Tobacco 

(PC 

1964 


Sold Out of State 
)unds) 

1963 


Out of State Tobacco Sold in N. C. 

(Pounds) 

1964 1963 


Tenn. 

Va. 


— 4,796,310 
2 238 


5,640,894 
2,030 


1,265,042 

1,787,596 

30,710 

52,280 

1,724 


1,357,670 

1.851,325 

34,396 

41,924 

768 


W. Va. 

Ga. 

S. C. 




Total 


— 4,798,548 


5,642,924 


3,137,352 


3,286,083 



19 



North" Carolina Flue-Cured Crops 
1919-1964* 



yield Per 
No. Acres Acre Production Value Average 

(Pounds) (1,000 lbs.) (1,000 Dollars) Price 



1919 


521,000 


612 


319,276 


$157,340 


$49.30 


1920 


621,900 


681 


423,703 


88,271 


20.80 


1921 


414,900 


594 


246,540 


60,402 


24.50 


1922 


444,000 


611 


271,170 


74,572 


27.50 


1923 


544,300 


728 


396,354 


81,998 


20.70 


1924 


473,500 


585 


276,819 


62,597 


22.60 


1925 


536,200 


696 


373,352 


83,756 


22.40 


1926 


546,700 


692 


378,274 


96,762 


25.60 


1927 


639,600 


755 


482,982 


100,414 


20.80 


1928 


712,400 


692 


493.132 


93,450 


19.00 


1929 


729,300 


665 


484,630 


89,470 


18.50 


1930 


768,000 


757 


581,200 


74,733 


12.90 


1931 


688,500 


692 


476,382 


42,024 


8.S0 


1932 


462,500 


624 


288,750 


34,949 


12.10 


1933 


667,800 


794 


530,133 


85,530 


16.10 


1934 


486,500 


847 


412,055 


117,999 


28.60 


1935 


612,500 


635 


572,625 


116,418 


20.30 


1936 


591,000 


765 


451,975 


101,856 


22.50 


1937 


675,000 


883 


595,815 


143,058 


24.00 


1938 


603,500 


844 


509,470 


115,428 


22.70 


1939 


843,000 


964 


812,540 


123,893 


15.20 


1940 


498,000 


1,038 


516,835 


85.792 


16.60 


1941 


488,000 


928 


452,825 


132,291 


29.20 


1942 


539.000 


1,052 


566,810 


221,538 


39.10 


1943 


580,000 


935 


542,200 


219,074 


40.40 


1944 


684.000 


1,077 


736,990 


317,628 


43.10 


1945 


722,000 


1,100 


794,310 


349,148 


44.00 


1946 


802,000 


1,138 


912,970 


451,639 


49.50 


1947 


783,000 


1,139 


892,205 


374,513 


42.00 


1948 


594,000 


1,239 


739,380 


368,040 


49.80 


1949 


621,000 


1,178 


731,530 


352.508 


48.20 


1950 


640,000 


1,441 


858,140 


477,508 


55.60 


1951 


735,000 


1.331 


978,375 


523,358 


53.50 


1952 


735,000 


1,222 


898,090 


448.582 


49.90 


1953 


674,000 


1,235 


832,305 


447,076 


53.70 


1954 


686,000 


1,204 


889,490 


483,003 


54.30 


1955 


653,000 


1,499 


978,775 


520,845 


53.20 


1956 


579,000 


1,661 


961,495 


496,324 


51.60 


1957 


443,000 


1,469 


650.780 


358.442 


55.10 


1958 


429,000 


1,718 


736,855 


427.307 


58.00 


1959 


458,500 


1,533 


702.942 


407,055 


57.90 


1960 


457,500 


1,836 


839,870 


512.731 


61.10 


1961 


463,000 


1,797 


832,215 


541,468 


65.10 


1962 


483,000 


1,890 


912,810 


549,594 


60.20 


1963 


460,500 


1,999 


920,660 


535.622 


58.18 


1964** 


416,000 


2,283 


949,850 


548,555 


57.75 



•Source: N. C. and USDA Crop Reporting Service. 
•Preliminary for 1964. 



20 



North Carolina Burley Crops 
1928-1964* 



No. Acres Acre Production Value Average 
(Pounds) (1,000 lbs.) (1,000 DoUars) Price 



1928 


3,600 


650 


2,340 


$ 690 


$29.50 


1929 


5,500 


730 


4.015 


863 


21.50 


1930 


7,200 


750 


5,400 


853 


15.80 


1931 


7,100 


710 


5,041 


464 


9.20 


1932 


6,500 


735 


4,778 


726 


15.20 


1933 


9,200 


785 


7,222 


715 


9.90 


1934 


5,500 


870 


4,785 


809 


17.50 


1935 


5,200 


925 


4.810 


1,025 


21.30 


1936 


6,000 


900 


5,400 


2,095 


38.80 


1937 


9,000 


975 


8,775 


1,787 


21.40 


1938 


8,600 


900 


7,740 


1,308 


16.90 


1939 


8,100 


1,070 


8,667 


1,447 


16.70 


1940 


6,500 


1,050 


6,825 


1,242 


18.20 


1941 


6,200 


1,075 


6,665 


2,093 


31.40 


1942 


6,600 


1,150 


7,590 


3,211 


42.30 


1943 


8,500 


1,225 


10,412 


5,102 


49.00 


1944 


12.000 


1,390 


16,680 


8,157 


48.90 


1945 


13,000 


1,500 


19,500 


7.568 


38.30 


1946 


9,800 


1,475 


14,455 


5,999 


41.50 


1947 


9,600 


1,560 


14,976 


6,335 


42.30 


1948 


10,300 


1,680 


17,304 


8,012 


46.30 


1949 


10,800 


1,440 


15,552 


6,750 


43.40 


1950 


10,500 


1,700 


17,850 


9,175 


51.40 


1951 


12,200 


1,750 


21,350 


11,572 


54.20 


1952 


12,000 


1,680 


20,160 


9,818 


48.70 


1953 


11,400 


1,800 


20,520 


11,019 


53.70 


1954 


12,700 


1,920 


24,384 


12,680 


52.00 


1955 


9,800 


1,900 


18,620 


10,651 


57.20 


1956 


9,400 


1,850 


17,390 


10,747 


61.80 


1957 


9,600 


1,975 


18,960 


11.073 


58.40 


1958 


9,300 


2,000 


18.600 


11.978 


64.40 


1959 


9,800 


2,060 


20,188 


11.426 


56.60 


1960 


9,500 


1,940 


18.430 


12.016 


65.20 


1961 


10,400 


2,090 


21.736 


14,346 


66.00 


1962 


11,000 


2,185 


24,035 


14.421 


60.00 


1963 


11,000 


2,285 


25.135 


13,573 


54.00 


1964** 


9,800 


2.200 


21,560 


12,505 


58.00 



♦Source: N. C. and USnA Crop Reporting Service 
'Preliminary for 1364 with value b.ised on market average. 



21 



N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments 
1965 



County No. Farms 

Alamance 1,421 

Alexander 945 

Anson 258 

Beaufort 2,326 

Bertie 1,686 

Bladen 3,142 

Brunswick 1,703 

Burke 1 

Cabarrus 1 

Caldwell 261 

Camden 2 

Carteret 334 

Caswell 1.927 

Catawba 4 

Chatham 1.054 

Chowan 184 

Cleveland 1 

Columbus 4,662 

Craven 1.669 

Cumberland 2,387 

Dare 1 

Davidson 1,815 

Davie 842 

Duplin 4,213 

Durham 942 

Edgecombe 1,453 

Forsyth 2,235 

Franklin 2,670 

Gaston 1 

Gates 124 

Granville 2,150 

Greene 1,2'20 

Guilford 3,148 

Halifax 2,095 

Harnett 3,250 

Hertford 914 

Hoke 748 

(redell 812 

Johnston 5,176 

Jones 888 

hce 1.286 



Acreage 




Allotment 


Rank 


3,375.50 


37 


967.39 


50 


282.49 


61 


6,838.14 


21 


4,071.36 


32 


5,317.28 


2S 


2,367.66 


41 


0.41 


69 


0.02 


73 


343.56 


59 


3.34 


66 


966.03 


51 


6,591.30 


23 


2.94 


65 


2,056.33 


46 


392.28 


58 


0.25 


70 


11,848.64 


7 


6,106.00 


24 


3,825.99 


34 


0.05 


72 


2',335.45 


44 


835.55 


53 


11,088.65 


S 


2,693.26 


39 


8,249.02 


16 


3,467.69 


35 


8,179.32 


IS 


3.29 


67 


194.51 


62 


9,579.79 


13 


8,596.74 


15 


6,505.11 


22 


4,228.14 


31 


10,362.91 


U 


2,337.70 


4 5 


1,834.7S 


47 


874.28 


5 2 


16,349.62 


2 


3,901.61 


33 


2.945.40 


3S 



22 



N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments 
1965 (Continued) 



County 2fo. Farms 

Lenoir l_g4g 

Martin 1 443 

Mecklenburg 1 

Montgomery 40g 

Moore 1^548 

Nash ^ 2,842 

New Hanover g4 

Northampton 215 

Onslow 1 773 

Orange '939 

Pamlico ^ 374 

Pender 1^629 

Person 1^33 

Pitt 2,608 

Randolph 1 603 

Richmond _ 953 

Robeson 4 561 

Rockingham 2 978 

Rowan 33 

Sampson 5050 

Scotland 527 

Stokes 2,766 

Surry 3073 

Tyrrell ^ 

Vance 1385 

Wake 3 661 

Warren 1809 

Washington g'SO 

Wayne 3031 



Wilkes 



942 



Wilson 2,065 

"•■"dkin - 2,697 

State Total 114,828 



Allotment 


Rank 


10,092.95 


12 


6,119.55 


25 


0.08 


71 


693.44 


56 


3,511.31 


36 


13,000.66 


5 


152.60 


63 


342.59 


60 


4,471.88 


29 


2,365.21 


40 


" 786.59 


55 


2,354.77 


43 


6,899.58 


20 


18,115.85 


1 


2,338.87 


42 


1.492.57 


48 


14,840.20 


3 


9,361.41 


14 


20.62 


6 4 


10,951.55 


3 


824.89 


54 


8,224.15 


17 


7,851.90 


19 


0.16 


6S 


5,879.96 


26 


13,942.75 


4 


4,375.84 


3) 


689.43 


57 


10,421.39 


10 


1,105.25 


49 


12,110.28 


fi 


5,783.03 


27 


339,041.09 


1-73 



23 



! 



N. C. Burley Allotments 
1965 



Acreage 
County ^0- Faims Allotment. 

Alleghany 530 

Ashe 2,523 

Avery 2'45 

Brunswick 1 

Buncombe 3,068 

Burke 12 

Caldwell 22 

Catawba 3 

Cherokee 206 

Clay 214 

Cleveland 9 

Davidson 3 

Gaston 1 

Graham 699 

Granville 1 

Haywood 2,055 

Henderson 115 

Iredell 3 

Jackson 310 

Lincoln 1 

McDowell 87 

Macon 246 

Madison 2,875 

Mitchell 943 

Polk 6 

Rutherford 62 

Stokes 2 

Surry 7 

Swain 227 

Transylvania 72 

Watauga 1,649 

Wilkes 24 

Yancey 1,838 

State Totals 18,059 



USIM Af!rl(-\illnre Slabillzatio 



227.95 


9 


1,116.23 


3 


115.29 


11 


0.09 


33 


1,557.13 


2 


4.67 


21 


7.65 


20 


0.92 


28 


70.45 


15 


86.76 


12 


3.39 


23 


1.32 


26 


0.50 


29 


332.03 


8 


0.12 


3 2 


1,070.27 


5 


46.05 


16 


1.45 


25 


123.71 


10 


0.30 


31 


27.97 


IS 


79.13 


13 


2,371.03 


1 


505. 6S 


7 


1.75 


24 


27.60 


19 


0.34 


3(1 


0.94 


27 


73.87 


14 


31.00 


17 


781.22 


6 


4.11 


22 


1,086.41 


4 



24 



North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses 
and Operators By Belts and Markets 

BORDER BELT 

Cliadbuui'ii lone set buyers) 

Producers— Jack W. Garrett, J. Franklin Bullard 
Green-Teachey — J. C. Green 

Clarkton (one set buyers) 

Bright Leaf — Joe Stephenson & Brothers 

New Clarkton Warehouse— J. M. Talley, J. C. Hartley 
Fail- Bliitt (one set buyers) 

Powell— A. H. Powell & Sons 

Littleton's — Sidney Wise, J. C. McNeil 

Planters— Carl Meares, Ken Ray. Tom Lewis 
Fairmont (four sets buyers) 

People's Big 5— E. J. Chambers. Yarboro & Garrett Company 

Davis & Mitchell Davis— F. A. Davis, Harry & Jack Mitchell " 

Holliday-Frye— E. H. Prye, J. W. and J. M. Hollidav 

Planters No. 1 & 2— G. R. Royster. Daniel 

Square Deal 1-2-3— W. C. Bassett 

Star Carolina 1-2-3— W. M. Puckett, A. M. Best 

Liberty-Twin States— P. R. Floyd, Jr., Paul Wilson, F. P. Joyce, Joe 

Big Brick — V. J. Griffin, A. D. Lewis, Jr. 
Payetteville (one set buyers) 

Big Farmers 1 & 2— P. L. Campbell, Sherrill Aiken 

Planters— J. W. Stephenson, J. C. Adams 
Liimberton (three sets buyers) 

Carolina — J. L, Townsend, James Johnson 

Smith-Dixie — Furman Biggs, Sr. & Jr. 

Hedgpeth— R. A. Hedgpeth, R. L. Rollins 

Liberty — R. H. Livermore 

Star, Inc— Hogan Teater, D. T. Stephenson 

Lumberton Cooperative— C. E. McLaurin, Mgr. 
Tabor City (one set buyers) 

V^:^^ ''';°""^,^ ^«* Farmers-R. C. Coleman. Mrs. Harriet Sikes 
Planters — Don Watson, Mgr. 

AVhiteville (three sets buyers) 

Crutchfield— G. E. & R. w. Crutchfield 

Lea's Big Dixie— William Townes Lea, Louie Love 

Moore's— A. H. Moore, C. C. Mason, C. F Jeffcoat 

Nelson's No. 1 & 2— John H. Nelson, Jim Smith 

Planters No. 1 & 2— A. O. King, Jr., J. W Peay 

Gray-Neal Farmers-Columbus County— A. Dail Gray, J L Neal 

Liberty— J. W. Hooks, L A. Barefoot & Sons 

Smith— Ernest Smith, Joe T. Smith. Jr., Percy McKeithan 

25 



EASTERN BEIiT 

Ahoskie (one set buyers) 

Basnight No. 1-2-3 — L. L. Wllkens, H. G. Veazey 
Farmers No. 1 & 2 — AV. M. Odoms, Pierce & Winborne 

Clinton (one set buyers) 

Carolina — L. D. Herring, C. J. Strickland 

Ross No. 2 — Guy R. Ross 

Farmers — H. A. Carr, J. J. Hill, W. W. Buck 

Dunn (one set buyers) 

Big 4 Warehouse — Tom Smothers, Jack Calhoun, Norman Hardee 
Planters — Leland Lee, .1. M. Smothers 

Farmville (two sets buyers) 
Bell's — Bell Brothers 
Farmers — John N. Fountain, Mgr. 
Monks — John N. Fountain, Mgr. 
Planters & Prewits — Chester Worthingtou, W. A. Newell, B. S. Cor- 

rell & C. Prewit 
Lee's — Gordon Lee 

Goldsboro (one set buyers) 

Carolina — S. G. Best, D. V. Smith, D. Price 
Farmers No. 1 — S. B. Hill, Carl Holloman, J. F. Hill 
Big Brick — J. R. Musgrave 
Victory — Richard Gray, Clarence Whitley 

Greenville (five sets buyers) 

Cannon's — W. T. Cannon, Carlton Dail 
Formers — W. A. Tripp, Dal Cox, T. P. Thompson 
Star-Planters — Harding Suggs, B. B. Suggs, L. J. Hill 
McGowan's — J. A. Worthington, Jack Woye 
Keel — Ashley Wynne, Floyd McGowan 
New Independent — Bob CuUipher, F. L. Blount 
Raynor-Forbes — Noah Raynor, A. H. Forbes 
Harris & Rogers — R. E. Rogers 
New Carolina — Larry Hudson, Laddie Avery 
Kinston (four sets buyers) 

Central — W. I. Herring, Bill King 

Farmers — John T. Jenkins 

Kinston Cooperatives — S. W. Smith, Mgr. 

New Dixie — John T. Jenkins, Mgr. 

Sheppard No. 1 — J. T. Sheppard 

Sheppard No. 2 — J. T. Sheppard 

New Central — W. I. Herring, Bill King 

The Star Warehouse No. 2 — Dempsey Hodges 

Banner — K. W. Loftin, John Heath 

Brooks Warehouse — Roger Brooks, Jr.. Frederick Brooks 

Knotts New Warehouse — H. G. Knott. W. E. Brewer 
Hoborsonville (one set buyers) 

Adkins & Bailey — J. H. Gray, Jack Sharpe 

Red Front— J. H. Gray, Jack Sharpe 

Planters No. 1 & 2 — H. T. Highsmith. E. G. Anderson 

26 



liockj Mount (four sets buyers) 

Cobb & Carlton No. 1 & 2 — W. E. Cobb, J. C. Carlton 

Mangum — Roy M. Phipps 

Planters No. 1-2-3 — W. H. Faulkner, Mgr. 

Smith No. 1 & 2 — James D. Smith 

Works Warehouse — R. J. Works, Jr. 

Peoples Warehouse Company, Inc.— Guy Barnes, Gene Simmons 

Farmers Warehouse, Inc. — J. C. Holt Evans, Mgr. 

Fenner.? — J. B. Fenner 

Siiiithfield (two sets buyers) 

Big Planters — Mrs. W. A. Carter, Paul McMillan 

Farmers No. 1 & 2 — Joe & C. E. Stephenson 

Gold Leaf No. 1 & 2 — R. A. Pearce 

Perkins Riverside — N. L. Perkins 

Wallace No. 1 & 2 — Lawrence and Dixon Wallace 

Skinner's — Prank Skinner 

Tarboro (one set buyers) 

Clarks No. 1 & 2 — H. I. Johnson, S. A. McConkey 
Farmers No. 1 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn 
Farmers No. 2 — W. L. House, J. P. Bunn 
Victory No. 1 & 2— Cliff Weeks, W. L. Leggett 

Wallace (one set buyers) 

Blanchard & Farrior — O. C. Blanchard, W. H. Farrior 
Hussey No. 1 & 3 — Joe Bryant, Bill Hussey 
Sheffield's — John Sheffield 
Farmers — H. G. Perry 

Washington (one set buyers) 

Sermon's No. 1 — W. J. Sermons, J. E. Roberson 
Sermon's No. 2'— W. J. Sermons, J. E. Roberson 
Talley-Hasaell 1 & 2 — M. M. Hassell, W. G. Talley 

Wendell (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Roy Clark, Jr. 

Liberty 1 & 2 — Bubber & Berdon Eddins 

Northside — G. Dean 

Banner — C. P. Southland, Isaac Medlin 
Wilson (five sets buyers) 

Big Dixie— E. B. Hicks, W. C. Thompson 

Wainwright — G. L. Wainwright 

Center Brick No. 1-2-3— Cozart & Eagles Co. 

Farmers — J. J. Gibbons, S. G. Deans 

Grower.? Cooperative — S. E. Griffin, Mgr. 

New Planters No. 1 & 2— R. T. & W. C. Smith, B. S. Carr 

Smith Warehouse, Inc. — H. H. Harris, Jr., Mgr. 

Watson — U. H. Cozart, Jr., Pres. 

Clark's — C. R. & Boyd Clark 

New Liberty — Carl B. Renfro 

Bob's Warehouse — Bob Clark 



27 



Williamston (one set buyers) 

Rodgers Warehouse — Urbin Rodgers. Russell Rudgevs, Li-Iand Barn- 
hill j_ 
New Dixie — C. Fisher Harris, J. Elmo Lilley 

Wiiulsor (one set buyers) 

Planters 1 & 2 — C. B. & B. U, Griftiu, Dave Xewsom 
Heckstall-Spruills — Grover & B. H. Jernigan 

MIDDLE BELT 

Aberdeen (one set buyers) 

New Aberdeen — Tom Faulkner 
Planters — W. Fentriss Phillips 
Hardee's — Hugh T. Hardee 

Carthage (one set buyers) 

McConnells — G. Hoover Carter, R. J. Brim. Jr. 
Victory — Barn Ennis & Buck Layton 

Diii-liam (three sets buyers) 
Liberty — Walker Stone 
Roycroft — H. T. & J. K. Roycroft 
Star-Brick — A. L. Carver, Cozart, Curriu 
Farmers-Planters — J. M. Talley, Howard Talley, Bob Dale, Sam Man- 
gum 

Ellerbe (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Bill Maurer 

Richmond County — Bud Rummage - - 

Fuquay-Variiia (two sets buyers) 

Big Top — Bill Talley & E. E. Clayton 
New Deal — W. M., A. R. & A. L. Talley 
Goldleaf — Sherrill Akins & J. W. Dail 
Carolina — P. L. Campbell 
Roberts — Joe, John & Earl Roberts 
Growers-Dixie — King Roberts 

Henderson (two sets buyers) 

Moore's Big Banner — A. H. Moore, C. E. Jeffcoat 

Carolina — M. H. Hugh, J. S. Royster 

Farmers — W. J. Alston, Jr. 

High Price — C. J. Fleming, C. B. Tumor 

Liberty — George T. Robertson 

Ellington — F. H. Ellington & Sons 

liouisburg (one set buyers) 

Big Franklin — S. T. & H. B. Cottrell 

Ford's — Charlie Ford 

Friendly Four — L. L, Sturdivant. Jnmes Speed 

28 



I 



7 

\ 



I 



Oxlord (two sets buyers) 

Banner— W. L. Mitchell, Jr., David Mitchell 
Mangum-Farmers— T. B. Williams, Julian Adcock, S. B. Knott 
Fleming No. 1 & 2— G. B. Watkins, D. T. Currin 
Planters & Johnson— C. R. Watkins, C. R. Watkins, Jr. 
Owens No. 1 & 2— J. S. Watkins, L. Gregory 
Granville — L. S. Bryan, Jr., W. W. Yeargin 

Sanlord (one set buyers) 

Twin City 1 & 2— W. M. Carter, T. V. Mansfield 
King Roberts 1-2-3— King Roberts. Jimmy Morgan 
Castleberrys — C. N. Castleberry 

Warrentoii (one set buyers) 
Boyd's — W. P. Burwell 

Centre No. 1 & 2— M. P. Carroll, E. W. Radford, E. M. Moody 
Farmers — E. G. Tarwater 
Thompson — C. E. Thompson 

Currin's No. 1 — C. W. Currin 

Currin's No. 2 — C. W. Currin 



OLD BELT 

Biirliiigton (one set buyers) 

Carolina — Lee Russell, Bob Rainey 
Coble — N. C. Newman, Curry King 
Farmers — Bill & Jack McCauley 

Grpeiisboro (one set buyers) 

Greensboro Tobacco Warehouse Co. — R. C. Coleman, Mgr. 

Guilford County Tobacco Warehouse Co.— H. P. Smothers, W. B. Hull 

Madison (one set buyers) 

New Brick— R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster 

Carolina— R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster 

Sharpe & Smith-Farmers — W. S. Smith, H. A. Fagg 

Mebaiie (one set buyers) 

Farmers 1 & 2 — Joe Dillard, Jule Allen 

New Piedmont— A. O. King, Jr., Billy Hopkins, Hugh Strayhorn 

Mt. -Airy (one set buyers) 

New Farmers— Tom Jones, Buck White, O. L. Badgett F V Dearmin 
Hunters — J. W., J. L. Hunter 

Keidsvilk- (one set buyers) 

Farmers— C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines 
Leader-Watts— A. P. Sands, W. A. McKinney 
Smothers— T. B. & J. M. Smothers 
Browns— C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines 

29 



Roxboro (one set buyers) 

Farmers — Lindsay Wagstaff, R. L. Hester 

Hyco W. R. Jones, F. J. Hester, George Walker 

Foacre — H. W. Winstead, Jr., Pres. 
Planters No. 2 — T. O. Pass 
Winstead — T. T. & Elmo Mitchell 
Pioneer — T. T. & Elmo Mitchell 

StoneviUt; (one set buyers) 

Joyce's No. 1 & 2 — O. P. Joyce, Gary Pell 
Farmers — F. A. Brown, P. M. Moorefield 
Piedmont — J. J. Webster 

Winston-Salem (four sets buyers) 

Brown — R. W. Newsome, W. B. Simpson 

Carolina-Star — G. H. Robertson, H. M. Bouldin 

Growers — Floyd Joyce, W. G. Sheets, J. R. Pell, M. M. Joyner 

Pepper No. 1 & 2 — Fred Owens, F. L. Kellam 

Taylor — Paul Taylor 

Big Winston — R. T. & J. F. Carter 

Cooks No. 1 & 2 — B. E. Cook, William Fowler, H. A. Thomas 



BURIiEY BEL,T 

Asheville (two sets buyers) 

Burley-Dixie No. 1 & 2 — R. A. Owen 

Planters No. 1 & 2 — J. W. Stewart 

Bernard-Walker Warehouse — James E. Walker, Mgr. 

Day's — Charlie Day 

Walkers Riverside Warehouse — L. J. Hill 

Boone (one set buyers) 

Mountain Burley No. 1 & 2 — Joe E. Coleman 

Farmers Burley — Joe E. Coleman 

Big Burley — King Roberts, R. E. Bullock 

West Jefferson (one set buyers) 

Trl-State Burley — C. C. Taylor, Rex Taylor 
Farmers Burley — Tom Faulkner, Hoover Carter 



30 



Estimated Flue-Cured Exports by Major 
Exporting Countries 

By Calendar Periods, 1947-51, 1952-54, 1955-57, 195S-60, 1961-62, 1963 and 1964 
(In million pounds, export weight) 

'""""''' I9t7-5I 1952-54 f955-57 1958-60 1961-62 1963 1964* 

^^"^''^ 20 33 37 33 42 36 50 

Rhodesia, Zambia, Malawi 72 98 119 143 137 isi 223 

^""^^^ ■- -40 53 78 74 95 115 130 

Communist China** 1 23 100 98 25 10 10 

°**>"^ - 11 23 31 31 39 51 57 

TOTAL FOREIGN 144 230 365 380 388 393 470 

TOTAL U.S 388 379 431 394 389 403 392 

WORLD TOTAL 532 609 796 774 777 796 862 

Percent U.S. 73 62 54 51 50 51 45 

• Preliminary estimate, 
!!L^'°i,"'!."'"'''' "iformation is available from Communist China or other CnmnmrU, 
controlled areas; estimates for such areas are based on the S information available 



Prices of Flue-Cured Exports From 
Major Exporting Countries 

U.S. cents per pounds, export weight 



•^""""^ '950-54 1955-59 I960 1961 1962 1963 



India 



United States 63.4 71.1 77.2 79.4 SO.S 82.1 

^^"^•l^ 55.6 61.3 71.1 72.9 67.1 71.7 

Rhodesia-Western Zambia _ 58.1 57.6 57.1 59.2 54.S 63.3 

31.9 32.2 36.6 32.0 30.6 36.1 



31 



DOMESTIC CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION 
BY KINDS 1964 




I 



♦ 



Total Domestic Consumption 
498 Billion Cigarettes